Background: The Covid-19 outbreak in spring of 2020 posed an array of challenges for nursing homes, including promoting resident physical activity (PA). Given the diversity of factors affecting resident PA, we explored how activity patterns outside weekly-scheduled structured activities changed during the pandemic and what factors promoted or inhibited PA during the pandemic.
Methods: We conducted systematic direct observations over 823.5 h in eight nursing homes in Southern Germany in 2020 and 2021.
Results: In 2020, 84.7% of person observation units were classified as sedentary (average activity level: 1.14 MET). In 2021, the percentage increased to 91.6% of observed person units (average activity level: 1.08 MET) (t = 6.947; p = .000). According to tree classification, influencing factors of PA included mealtime and daytime in 2020 and 2021, as well as presence of men residents only in 2020 and guided low threshold activities in 2021.
Conclusions: Nursing homes constitute highly sedentary places-an issue exacerbated by access restrictions for external activity experts and significant others as well as behavioural restrictions for residents during the Covid-19 pandemic. Staff could not compensate due to existing time restraints and lack of training in PA promotion. Based on our findings, we recommend future studies to develop feasible and resource-low activities to be integrated into the daily routines of nursing homes.
Background: Resistance training (RT) and nutritional supplementation are recommended for the management of sarcopenia in older adults. However, optimal RT intensity for the treatment of sarcopenia has not been well investigated.
Methods: This network meta-analysis aims to determine the comparative effectiveness of interventions for sarcopenia, taking RT intensity into consideration. RT intensity was classified into light-to-moderate intensity RT(LMRT), moderate intensity RT(MRT), and moderate-to-vigorous intensity RT(MVRT) based on percentage of one repetition maximum (%1RM) and/or rating of perceived exertion.
Results: A total of 50 RCTs (N = 4,085) were included after screening 3,485 articles. The results confirmed that RT with or without nutrition was positively associated with improved measures of muscle strength and physical performance. Regarding RT intensity, LMRT only demonstrated positive effects on hand grip (aerobic training + LMRT + nutrition: mean difference [MD] = 2.88; 95% credential intervals [CrI] = 0.43,5.32). MRT provided benefits on improvement in the 30-s chair stand test (repetitions) (MRT: MD = 2.98, 95% CrI = 0.35,5.59), timed up and go test (MRT: MD = -1.74, 95% CrI: = -3.34,-0.56), hand grip (MRT: MD = 2.44; 95% CrI = 0.03,5.70), and leg press (MRT: MD = 8.36; 95% CrI = 1.87,13.4). MVRT also improved chair stand test repetitions (MVRT: MD = 5.64, 95% CrI = 0.14,11.4), gait speed (MVRT + nutrition: MD = 0.21, 95% CrI = 0.003,0.48), appendicular skeletal muscle index (MVRT + nutrition: MD = 0.25, 95% CrI = 0.01,0.5), and leg press (MVRT: MD = 14.7, 95% CrI: 5.96,22.4; MVRT + nutrition: MD = 17.8, 95% CrI: 7.55,28.6).
Conclusion: MVRT had greater benefits on muscle mass, lower extremity strength, and physical performance compared to MRT. Increasing RT intensity may be recommended for sarcopenic older adults.
Background: Exercise training recommendations for seniors include the targeted training of strength, balance, endurance and flexibility domains. Agility training (AT) is conceptualized as a multi-component and time-efficient training framework for older adults to improve physical, functional and cognitive health domains that are relevant for maintaining activities of daily living. The aim of this one-year trial was to comparatively evaluate the effects of agility training on physical and cognitive function.
Methods: Seventy-nine healthy older adults (AT: 61.5% female, 70.8 ± 4.8 years, 27.7 ± 4.2 kg/m2; CG: 60.5% female, 69.6 ± 4.7 years, 27.5 ± 4.4 kg/m2) took part in this one-year randomized controlled intervention and were either assigned to the agility training group (AT) with two weekly 60 min AT sessions or to the control group (CG), receiving no treatment. Participants were assessed pre, intermediate and post intervention for strength and power, balance, gait speed under multi-task conditions, aerobic capacity as well as cognitive performance. Linear mixed effects models were used to analyze the effect of treatment over time.
Results: Fifty-four participants (AG: 25, CG: 29) were analyzed, most drop-outs attributed to COVID-19 (17/30 dropouts). Adherence was good (75%) of 90 offered sessions. Notable effects in favor of AT were found for gait parameters in single (d = 0.355, Δ = 4.3%), dual (d = 0.375, Δ = 6.1%) and triple (d = 0.376, Δ = 6.4%) task conditions, counter movement jump performance (strength and power) (d = 0.203, Δ = 6.9%), static one leg balance (d = 0.256, Δ = 12.33%) and n-back reaction time (cognitive performance) (d = 0.204, Δ = 3.8%). No effects were found for the remaining outcomes (d < 0.175).
Conclusion: AT might serve as an integrative training approach for older adults particularly improving gait and lower limb power parameters. It seems suitable to improve a broad range of seniors' health domains and should replace isolated training of these domains. However, individual variation and progression of exercises should be considered when programming agility training providing adequate challenges throughout a long-term intervention for all participants.
Trial registration: DRKS, DRKS00017469 . Registered 19 June 2019-Retrospectively registered.
Background: Evidence on the factors influencing physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) in middle-aged and older adults taking care of their grandchild(ren) is limited, even though this knowledge seems imperative when considering the unique relationship between grandparents and their grandchild(ren) as well as the rising popularity of intergenerational interventions targeting these energy-expenditure related behaviors. Therefore, this explorative qualitative study aimed to identify the determinants of PA and SB levels among Flemish caregiving grandparents in the presence of their grandchild(ren) aged between 0-5 years.
Methods: Six online focus group discussions were conducted via Microsoft Teams, all of which were audio- and videotaped with permission granted by the participating grandparents. In total, nine caregiving grandfathers and 28 caregiving grandmothers (overall mean age = 60.9 ± 4.1y) participated in this study. An inductive content analysis approach was used to derive subcategories, categories and themes from the verbatim transcribed data using NVivo R1.
Results: Caregiving grandparents' levels of PA and SB were both influenced by personal determinants (e.g., physical health, grandparental perceptions and responsibilities), interpersonal determinants (e.g., characteristics of the grandchild(ren), such as age-related physical/motor development and family interaction), and environmental determinants (e.g., weather and seasonal circumstances). PA levels of caregiving grandparents were further affected by additional personal determinants (e.g., age of the grandparent, planning and location) and interpersonal determinants (e.g., characteristics of the grandchild(ren), such as new experiences of the grandchild(ren)). Additionally, some personal determinants (e.g., perception of educational value) and interpersonal determinants (e.g., characteristics of the grandchild(ren), such as age-related cognitive development and health of the grandchild(ren)) were strictly mentioned to influence caregiving grandparents' SB.
Conclusions: Acknowledging the unique relationship between grandparents and their grandchild(ren), the current study identified specific factors determining grandparents' PA and SB levels during the provision of grandchild care. Besides, it turned out of importance to take the interplay between the different determinants into account. Especially, for those grandparents with older grandchild(ren), within the studied 0-5 years age range, more attention should be paid to grandchild characteristics as part of the interpersonal determinants when setting up interventions to improve levels of PA and SB in caregiving grandparents.
Introduction: Scarce evidence is available about the minimum number of valid days wearing the activPAL3 to obtain a precise estimate of sedentary behaviour (SB) and awake-time movement behaviours (ATMB) in nursing home (NH) residents. The study aimed to determine the minimum number of valid days required for accurately estimate SB and ATMB using the activPAL3 device in NH residents. It also investigated how the starting point of a day (the 24-h period) impacted reliability.
Methods: Participants wore an activPAL3 for 7 consecutive days. The data was classified in two-time blocks (00:00 Ante Meridiem (AM)-00:00 AM midnight vs 12:00 Post Meridiam (PM) -12:00 PM midday) and the sample was stratified into two groups according to their capacity to stand and walk, to examine if timing of sampling or physical functioning affected minimum wear time. SB, ATMB, sociodemographic, and health-related variables were collected. Sensitivity of the time-blocks were tested through the dispersion frequencies and differences between blocks through Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality; parametric variables through two-related means T-test and Wilcoxon test for non-parametric data. Reliability was assessed with the Cronbach's Alpha and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), using a one-factor model estimating the reliability for each measurement day loading in the same latent factor.
Results: Ninety-five NH residents (81.1% women; age = 85.8 ± 7.2 years) were included. The midnight block had higher reliability, sensitivity and no statistically significant differences between days were found. At least three consecutive days of monitoring were necessary to achieve a reliability of ICC ≥ 0.8 for those NH residents able to stand and walk and six days for those unable.
Conclusions: NH residents who are able to stand and walk require a minimum of three consecutive days wearing the device, while those who are unable require at least six days due to their highly homogenous daily routines and sensitivity to PA events. Regardless of the activPAL3 recording start time, data processing should reference the midnight time block.
Background: There is lack of research on combinations of possible modifiable risk factors for dementia in a life-time perspective. Dementia has currently no cure, and therefore new knowledge of preventive factors is important. The purpose of this study is to investigate if changes in physical activity (PA) in combinations with systolic blood pressure (SBP) trajectories in mid to late life are related to development of dementia in older age.
Methods: This prospective cohort study uses data from four consecutive surveys of the HUNT Study, Norway. Dementia was assessed in the HUNT4 70 + sub-study (2017-19). Group-based trajectory modelling identified three SBP trajectories from HUNT1 (1984-86) to HUNT3 (2006-2008): low, middle, and high. Change in PA was categorized into four groups based on high or low PA level at HUNT1 and HUNT3 and were combined with the SBP trajectories resulting in 12 distinct categories. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of dementia.
Results: A total of 8487 participants (55% women, mean age (SD) 44.8 (6.5) years at HUNT1) were included. At HUNT4 70 + , 15.2% had dementia. We observed an overall decrease in OR of dementia across the PA/SBP categories when ranked from low to high PA (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.00, P = 0.04). Within PA groups, a low SBP trajectory was associated with lower OR for dementia, apart from those with decreasing PA. The strongest association was observed for people with stable high PA and low SBP trajectory (OR, 0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.13 to 1.10 and adjusted risk difference, -8.34 percentage points; 95% CI, -15.32 to -1.36).
Conclusion: Our findings illustrate the clinical importance of PA and SBP for dementia prevention and that favorable levels of both are associated with reduced occurrence of dementia.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：